1991 (11) TMI 139 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the 5-year period of eligibility for concessional rate of clearance of 'paper' and 'paper board' under TI 17(1) of the Central Excise Tariff in relation to Notification No. 108/81 and subsequent amendments.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The dispute revolves around the calculation of the 5-year period for concessional clearance of 'paper' and 'paper board' under Notification No. 108/81. The Department contends that the period should start from the date of issue of the original notification in 1981, while the respondents argue it should commence from the date of the amending notification in 1984. The respondents cleared kraft paper at a concessional rate from 1979 and claimed eligibility until 1989, based on their interpretation of the notifications.

2. The lower appellate authority ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that the concession period should be calculated from the first clearance of goods or the date of respective notifications, whichever is later. The Revenue appealed this decision, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal considered the language of the relevant notifications, including Notification No. 108/81, 83/84, and 214/84, to determine the scope and conditions of the concession. The notifications specified the eligible goods, conditions for exemption, and the 5-year period for concessional clearance.

4. The Tribunal emphasized that the 5-year concession period should be calculated from the date specified in Notification 108/81, regardless of subsequent amendments or changes in the tariff classification. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the concession period should start from the date when 'paper' and 'paper board' were included in the tariff, highlighting the importance of adhering to the language and intent of the notifications.

5. The Tribunal cited precedent and legal principles to support its interpretation, emphasizing that fiscal statutes should be construed based on the language used in the notifications without implying or altering the conditions set forth. The Tribunal clarified that the focus should be on the grant of exemption for the specified period, not on the enjoyment of the concession beyond the stipulated timeframe.

6. The Tribunal addressed arguments regarding anomalies in the notifications and the concept of 'first clearance' in relation to changes in tariff classifications. It underscored that the fixed concept of 'first clearance' cannot be altered based on subsequent amendments or reclassifications, maintaining consistency in the application of concession periods.

7. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from previous judgments, highlighting that the respondents had availed the concession from the initial clearance date until the expiration of the 5-year period from the original notification. The Tribunal rejected contentions regarding ceiling limits of concession and affirmed that the respondents were eligible for the concession only until the specified date in 1986.

8. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the lower order and allowed the appeal, ruling that the respondents were entitled to the concession only until the expiry of the 5-year period from the original notification, in line with the language and intent of the relevant notifications.